A Forum for Vigorous Debate, Cornerstone of Democracy

***********************************************************************************************************************************A FORUM FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND VIGOROUS DEBATE, CORNERSTONES OF DEMOCRACY[For the journal(guidelines, focus, etc.), go to www.theamericandissident.org].Encouraged censorship and self-censorship seem to have become popular in America today. Those who censor others, not just self, tend to favor the term "moderate," as opposed to "censor" and "moderation" to "censorship." But that doesn't change what they do. They still act as Little Caesars or Big Brother protectors of the thin-skinned. Democracy, however, demands a tough populace, not so easily offended. On this blog, and to buck the trend of censorship, banning, and ostracizing, comments are NEVER "moderated." Rarely (almost NEVER) do the targets of these blog entries respond in an effort to defend themselves with cogent counter-argumentation. This blog is testimony to how little academics, poets, critics, newspaper editors, cartoonists, political hacks, cultural council apparatchiks, librarians et al appreciate VIGOROUS DEBATE, cornerstone of democracy. Clearly, far too many of them could likely prosper just fine in places like communist China and Cuba or Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Russia.

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Editorial--Issue #34

Torn in Two

Firewalls that once strictly separated news from opinion have been replaced by hopelessly blurred lines. Once-forbidden practices such as editorializing within straight news reports, and the inclusion of opinions as if fact, are not only tolerated; they’re encouraged. […] I’m commonly asked, “Can ‘the news’ be fixed?” In simple terms, there are two components necessary to do so: We must correctly identify (and admit) our problem, and then take steps to correct it. We have yet, as an industry, to take step one.

—Sharyl Attkisson

Journalist ideologues do not like the First Amendment because it permits those outside of their ideological cocoon to openly question and challenge the absence of reason and fact normally inherent in ideology. Authoritarians hate the First Amendment because it permits criticism. The ploy of journalist ideologues now seems to be to dismiss free-speech activists as haters and white-nationalist racists. It is mind-boggling, childishly simplistic, and downright stupid to bellow HATE, HATE, HATE, though in a far too often successful effort to KILL DEBATE. Too much following! Too much groupthink! WANTED: Individual free-speech activists!!!

We live in darker and darker times. “Liberalism is white supremacy!” bellowed BLM protesters at William & Mary College and prevented, via the heckler’s veto, Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, from speaking. In other words, for those successful fascist protesters, freedom of speech, a core tenet of liberalism, must be eliminated. It has gotten to the point where one cannot express an alt-opinion without getting moderated (i.e., censored) into oblivion, as if one didn’t even exist. InsideHigherEd.com recently did that with several of my alt-opinions, which therefore inspired this issue’s front cover. For the censored alt-opinions, see wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2017/08/doug-lederman-and-scott-jaschik.html and wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2017/08/scott-jaschik-and-doug-lederman.html. Both IHE editors, Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman, incarnate the shame of academe today. College president Patricia McGuire, also depicted on the cover, responded in full approval of the censorship of my response to her article, which I’d sent to her.

On another note, Poets & Writers magazine offers “Writing Prompts” in each issue. So, if you want a prompt for The AD, check out P&W’s website and write something critical, critical, critical on any of the amazingly inane featured articles, including “Writing Prompts” like the following:

Last month, Crayola announced the retirement of one of their yellow crayon colors, Dandelion, which will soon be replaced by a blue crayon. Since Binney & Smith first began producing Crayola crayons in 1903, many colors have been cycled in and out. Some colors have remained the same shade but changed names over the years, such as Peach, which was previously named Flesh Tint, Flesh, and Pink Beige. Read more about the history of Crayola crayon colors, and write a poem inspired by some of the names you find most evocative, perhaps finding thematic potential in how the types of names have evolved over the years.

Yes, let’s all write poems inspired by crayon colors! You cannot make this shit up, as the saying goes. Now, here’s an unabashedly racist, sexist and even ageist zine, though with the seal of approval of ideology (i.e., identity politics). And, of course, if you’ve been sufficiently brain-washed (i.e., multiculti/diversity-indoctrinated), you will be compelled to disagree with my observation.

Quillsedge Press is accepting submissions for our “50 over 50” anthology through September 22. Women poets over the age of 50 are eligible to submit. Translations welcome if the original poet is also a woman at least 50 years old. Discounted fees for women of color. For full guidelines, visitwww.quillsedgepress.org.

Now, how about submissions from men over 50 and discounts for white men? Ideology with its inevitable double standards always trumps reason in our brave new world… Quillsedge ain’t the only anything-but-the-rude-truth mag out there. In fact, they all seem to be thus. Here’s a few of the more inane amongst them, as listed in Poets & Writers:

—Coffee Poetry Anthology edited by Lorraine Healy, published by World Enough Writers (imprint of Concrete Wolf). Send us poems that involve coffee in some fashion.

—We need poems, short fiction, and creative nonfiction to fill an upcoming anthology with the theme “Tattoos.” Sponsored by Main Street Rag Publishing Company.

Finally, since poets love to deify poetry and themselves, they ought to stand up—not in groupthink pussy-hatted clusters—but as individuals and speak truth to power, especially where it might actually be a wee bit risky for their lit careers. Think of Villon, who spoke truth to the ruling theocrats of Paris in the 1400s and ended up in a medieval hole in the ground (“En fosse giz, non pas soubz houz ne may”), then forever exiled. Poets who don’t want to make waves will come up with all kinds of lame excuses and seek to belittle the rare ones who do, as in sour grapes, tired trope, full of himself or whatever…

Well, vigorous debate is a good thing!Hopefully, you might publish the attached cartoon I just sketched on one of your professors… or is the “White Racism” issue now hermetically closed at FGCU?Please do let me know of your decision.Thanks!

Unfortunately, since we're a student newspaper and are only able to publish student work, we won't be able to use your cartoon. However, we do accept letters to the editor from non-students. You're more than welcome to submit one.

Monday, November 6, 2017

Hypocrite at the Helm: Jeanie HillIn 2015, I requested a review of the permanent no-trespass order in effect against me since 2012 in accord with Sturgis Acceptable Behavior Policy: “Patrons whose privileges have been revoked may have the decision reviewed by the Board of Library Trustees.” Sturgis Library did not respond to that request. Several weeks ago, I again made the request, though noted this time I’d be informing the Barnstable County Human Rights Commission. I received the following brief response, which essentially confirms that as a patron, I have a right to a review, but because there is an order in effect, I do not have a right to a review. Therefore the policy is hypocritical. Therefore those who adopted it are hypocrites at the helm. In essence, for a speech crime, I was convicted without possibility of parole, let alone due process. Following the response letter is my response.

From: George Slone

Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 6:34 PM

To: sturgislibrary@comcast.net

Cc: editor@barnstablepatriot.com

Subject: Att: Jeanie Hill

To Jeanie Hill, President, Sturgis Library Trustees:

Well, I don’t even know if you’ll bother to read this letter, let alone receive it, for your personal email is not even listed on Sturgis Library’s website, nor is your photo. Hey, how can I cartoon you w/o a photo?

Anyhow, thanks for your brief response: “There is a no trespass order in effect; therefore your request to be reinstated at Sturgis Library is denied.”

Since the trustees did not respond to my 2015 request, I was surprised you responded at all, though suspect my mention of the Human Rights Commission might have pushed you in that kindly direction.

In essence, I do not need Sturgis Library… but nevertheless seek redress of a wrong: no-trespass order w/o warning and w/o due process for the speech crime of having criticized director Lucy Loomis in writing one week prior to the order in 2012.

Oddly, as a patron or former patron, in accord with your Sturgis Acceptable Behavior Policy, I purportedly have the right to a review: “Patrons whose privileges have been revoked may have the decision reviewed by the Board of Library Trustees.” However, because there is a no-trespass order in effect, I do not have a right to a review. Go figure!

To be honest, and I know that’s difficult for you and other hypocrites at the helm, why not replace “may” with “may or may not” in that statement to reflect reality? But I suppose doing that would essentially annul the statement itself. Why present a semblance of patron rights when clearly patrons cannot have rights under a director given free rein to dictate? Can you grasp that simple thought?

Why therefore was that policy really adopted… and shortly after the no-trespass order issued against me? Did the trustees feel the need, for who knows what reason, to present the library under a false light of democratic process? Loomis is an autocrat. As long as she or others of her ilk are in power, Sturgis Library will be autocratic, no matter what hollow policies you and she decide to adopt. Can you grasp that?

Finally, is it not aberrant that librarians aren’t even interested in debate regarding their own policies, including your Collection Development Policy statement “libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view.” That statement is a clear example of librarian hypocrisy. After all, my point of view and those I publish have been permanently banned! And of course you and Loomis will never address that egregious anomaly, for it is intellectually easier to simply avoid it and demonize the messenger as dangerous.

A patron like me will only have rights at places like Sturgis, if he does not question and challenge the hypocrites inevitably at the helm. Or if he does question and challenge them, he will only have rights if he spends thousands of dollars for legal assistance. In my case, I decided not to do that, though the thought of that possibility still remains, as I approach my 70th birthday…

Thursday, October 26, 2017

The following email was sent to Sturgis Library director Lucy Loomis in 2015. No response was ever received. And yet her “Sturgis Acceptable Behavior Policy,” adopted one year after she permanently banned me w/o warning and w/o due process, clearly stipulates that “Patrons whose privileges have been revoked may have the decision reviewed by the Board of Library Trustees.” In the absence of accountability, people in power positions like Loomis can do and say whatever they want, including adopting policies and not abiding by the policies adopted. Hypocrites at the helm likely constitute the majority of people in power positions today in America's ever declining democracy...

It has been almost three years now since you permanently banned me from my neighborhood library, the one my tax dollars help support. No due process was offered, as you know, despite my request. How odd to me that this could and in fact did happen in America! My civil rights are being denied today because, as you know, I am not permitted to attend any cultural or political events held at my neighborhood library. And yet I have never been charged with a crime, let alone misdemeanor.

In any event, I am requesting that you consider rescinding your order because the sole reason you provided for it, that I represented a potential physical danger (“for the safety of staff and public”) is clearly an invalid one. After all, not one person on Sturgis Library’s staff or in the United States of America in general has been harmed, let alone threatened, by me.

As you know, my only real “crime” was NOT one of potential violence, but rather the written criticism I’d disseminated with your regard, in particular, the library statement that “libraries should provide materials and information that present all points of view.” My point of view and the points of view of all those people published in The American Dissident, as you know, are currently banned at Sturgis Library, thus proving that statement to be hypocritical.

Freedom of speech was massacred in Paris several months ago by Islamist haters of freedom of speech. Do you really wish to continue siding with those free-speech hating murderers of cartoonists? Please be reminded that freedom of speech, vigorous debate, and due process are in fact democracy’s very cornerstones, while banning speech because you do not like it or somehow think it is violent is definitely not, nor is obligatory deference to those in power, be they presidents or library directors.

Finally, you will note that when I was visiting Sturgis almost on a daily basis, never was I informed that I might have been breaking a library regulation. In fact, is freedom of speech not permitted at Sturgis? If so, I should have at least been warned and directed to that regulation.

When one refuses to toe the line of expected docility—a twisted notion of “civility”—and openly questions and challenges pillars of the community, who cannot bear to be criticized by ordinary citizenry, one automatically becomes persona non grata—essentially non existent, hallucinatory.

Perhaps one or several of you were curious and actually read my 2014 open letter to you, “Dereliction of Duty." Or perhaps you weren’t on the HRC back then? If so, you can still read that letter. It is heartening for me to note that HRC Coordinator Elenita Muñiz has been replaced. How not to remember her grotesque statement: “Racism is alive and well in this country and everyone who is white-skinned is racist.” Will the new Coordinator Susan Quiñones prove to be less racist and more interested in issues of freedom of speech? Well, she has refused to respond to my two emails. Did she distribute this Open Letter to you, as requested?

It is also heartening for me to note that John Reed is no longer Chair. Amazingly, Reed seemed a bit confused as to human rights. He and you ought to study Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the First Amendment. Reed had actually told me in front of you during one of your meetings that a court case in the building had just rendered it illegal to satirize public figures like him. Can it get any more mind-numb than that? Reed had also told me in front of you that it was forbidden to take photos at Commission meetings. Yet thanks to photos, human rights violations and free-speech haters can be documented! Moreover, due to my attendance, Reed had requested police presence—a perhaps common kill-the-messenger tactic of autocrats. Do I have a criminal record of violence? Of course not! Do I make threats? Of course not!

Library director Lucy Loomis used the same tactic in 2012. The only reason she provided to the president of the library board of trustees, Ted Lowry, for permanently banning me w/o warning or due process from Sturgis Library was “for the safety of the staff and public.” Yet not one staff member or anyone else has ever been threatened by me—physically. However, Loomis evidently felt severely threatened intellectually, for I had criticized her in writing prior to the trespass order (see Open Letter and Open Letter #2), regarding especially the Collection Development statement that “libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view.” My point of view and those published in The American Dissident have been permanently banned. Perhaps James LaRue, director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, can help you rationalize that aberrancy.

Today I am not permitted to attend any cultural or political events held at my neighborhood library. Does that not constitute a violation of my civil rights? Will the new chair Barbara Burgo prove to be less apathetic and stand for a local citizen’s basic human right to freedom of speech? Or will she prove to be yet another business-as-usual hypocrite at the helm steering in accord with the wishes and close-knit ties of community pillars—the other commissioners, librarians, newspaper editors, town councilors, educators, and businessmen. In the absence of intellectual accountability, as in the case of Loomis and Sturgis Library, democracy and freedom are at stake. The Washington Post rightfully states, “Democracy dies in darkness.” Well, here in Barnstable County, it is dark. Neither the Barnstable Patriot (Deborah Boucher Stetson) nor the Cape Cod Times (Paul Pronovost) will publish an account of the permanent banning.

Of the many organizations I contacted, including your Commission, only the State Secretary of Records chose to stand for freedom and ordered Loomis against the will of Town Manager Thomas Lynch to open Sturgis Library records to public scrutiny, which enabled me to finally discover her email, the only document regarding the permanent trespass order. Will any of you, especially the new commissioners, stand for freedom and at least dare buck the system of hypocrites at the helm and write a letter to Loomis and the library trustees to at least request my basic human rights be restored in Barnstable? How can Town Manager Mark S. Ells and town councilors justify giving thousands of dollars to Sturgis every year when Loomis can, at a whim, ban town citizens permanently?

In 2015, I requested a review of the no-trespass order in accord with Sturgis Acceptable Behavior Policy, which your collaboration likely helped enact: “Patrons whose privileges have been revoked may have the decision reviewed by the Board of Library Trustees.” Sturgis Library did not respond to that request. Several weeks ago, I again made the request, though noted this time I’d be informing you of it. Jeanie Hill, President of the Board of Trustees, responded briefly: “There is a no trespass order in effect; therefore your request to be reinstated at Sturgis Library is denied.” In essence, that is an example of circular (faulty) reasoning: As a patron, I have a right to a review, but because there is an order in effect, I do not have a right to a review.

For the speech crime of having criticized Loomis in writing, the punishment is permanent banning without possibility of parole. Only severe intellectual conformity can allow each of you to accept that. In his famous essay, “Self-Reliance,” Ralph Waldo Emerson rightfully stated: “I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions. Every decent and well-spoken individual affects and sways me more than is right. I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways.” Might there be one of you apt to “go upright and vital” and buck the system of hypocrites at the helm? [To view links, consult this Open Letter on The American Dissident blogsite.]

G. Tod Slone, Ed., The American Dissident, A Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

(In 2012, Sturgis Library director Lucy Loomis permanently banned me w/o warning, w/o due process, and w/o a written notice. Sturgis is my neighborhood library. My taxes help pay for it. Loomis' decree prevents me from attending any political or cultural events held at my neighborhood library, thus truncating my civil rights. Since 2012, the following organizations and people were contacted in an effort to obtain justice. Only the State Secretary of Records of Massachusetts proved helpful by forcing Loomis to open her records to public scrutiny. The only reason for the banning appeared in an email she wrote to Ted Lowry, President of the Trustees: "for the safety of the staff and public." Yet I do NOT have a criminal record of violence and never make threats! Indeed, Loomis never states I made threats. Since the banning, not one person has been harmed or threatened by me. Scan down my blogs to read entries posted on this despicable assault on FREEDOM OF SPEECH in Barnstable County on Cape Cod...

-Town Manager (argued no jurisdiction/no interest, though the former was false considering that he was forced to contact the library by the State Records chief)

-Town Attorney (no jurisdiction/no interest)

-ACLUM (interested at first, contacted Sturgis, then silence, then a simple, no)

-Police Station (paid 50 cents for the police report, which does not mention precise reasons or even the duration of the trespass order)

-Barnstable Patriot (no response)

-Barnstable Enterprise (no response… and now defunct)

-Cape Cod Times (no response)

-Eleanor Claus, President of the Town Library Committee at the time (no response)

-Cape Cod Community College English instructors- one puerile, indirect response from Prof. John French “Hi Sally, I suppose I will be a target soon...LOL I hope he brings it on while I am at 60mg of Prednisone. John” [Pathetic non-response]

-PEW Research Center [No response]

-Center for Individual Rights [No response]

-Center for Inquiry—Campaign for Free Expression [No response]

-Cape Cod Writers Center (Dir. Nancy Rubin Stuart) [3 or 4 different times and never a response]

Friday, October 13, 2017

The Hillary Poets of the Hillary Resistance

Poetry has become very important again, at least according to New York Times hack-journalist-for-the- publishing-and-literary world Alexandra Alter. In her article, “American Poets, Refusing to Go Gentle, Rage Against the Right,” she quotes a number of Hillary poets, though somehow doesn’t mention Hillary in it. Under the previous political regime, the poets were conspicuously silent… or rather lap-doggie. Poet Jane Hirshfield explains: “When poetry is a backwater it means times are O.K. When times are dire, that’s exactly when poetry is needed.” Yes, everything was wonderful under Obama and yes, somehow poetry will take down he, who Hillary couldn’t.

Across the nation today, poets have awakened and are walking like groupthink zombies out of the “backwater,” though only partially, because they’re still holding their PC-pens and writing from the confines of their groupthink “backwater” safe-spaces. They are raging, though not against the poesy establishment, not against the poesy academy chancellors, not against the black poesy laureate autocratically-anointed by the black Librarian of Congress appointed by the former black president, not against the poesy academic gatekeepers—those poesy executive directors of poesy societies and poesy academies and publishers of establishment poesy rags—, not against their well-fed poesy idols usually entrenched in academic sinecures, and not against the inherent corruption in the according of poesy stipends, poesy grants, and poesy tenure slots.

Most poets couldn’t even fathom questioning and challenging such things and persons. After all, doing that would mean being free-minded and going against the academic grain, rocking the establishment boat, and bucking the literary system, those giant hands that feed only poets in lockstep. Not a good poesy-career move at all! Far too risky! Far too much individuality required!

As for the new raging verse, Jeff Shotts, one of those poesy executive editors (Graywolf Press), argues: “This isn’t just confessional poetry, but poetry that’s meant to stir us into action.” Action for Hillary, the Prevaricator, once again in 2020? Action for more Russian-collusion inanity? Alter informs that the poets are forming part of the Hillary-resistance movement (without mentioning Hillary of course). Will their icon Maya Angelou step out of her academic cocoon to denounce Trump? Well, I guess not. She’s dead. “There’s going to be a major shift in our poetry,” announced Alice Quinn, yet another of those poesy executive directors. Poetry Society of America is her fiefdom, you know, that members-only society, where only members can anoint new members. “The poems that I have been reading, which are freshly minted, most of them, have a powerful sense of urgency and reckoning and responsibility,” she stipulates. Responsibility to speak truth as staunch individuals and to poesy-power figures like her? Of course not!

Self-declared gender-free poet Danez Smith, whose verse is used by Black Lives Matter, provides some lines of “urgency and reckoning”: “on the TV/ is the man from TV/ is gonna be president/ he has no word/ & hair beyond simile/ you’re dead, America.” Brilliant! Daring! Original!!! Well, apparently Alter must think so. “We turn to poems in moments of crisis for comfort,” announces Jennifer Benka, yet another of those poesy executive directors. Yes, poets with lofty titles! Her fiefdom is the omnipotent Academy of American Poets. Dare criticize it and be banned forever! Yes, that’s what happened to me quite a while ago! Read all about it here! After all, curiosity didn’t kill the poet, PC-groupthink did that! Do the Hillary poets care about my banning? Of course not!

“We’ve seen this spontaneous swell of people coming to read poems that speak to this moment,” says Benka. Oh, yeah, now they’ll be putting some of those Academy-approved poems in those academic safe-spaces next to the crayons, legos, and teddy bears!

Alter informs that “Poetry readings around the country have come to resemble leftist political rallies.” Does she mean the violence and rioting against those with the wrong opinions? Such rallies are of course not inclusive or at all open to diversity of thought and remind of Stalinist Pravda poetry and of the incarcerated Cuban poets, who could not and did not walk in lockstep with the communist Castro regime, the one praised by, well, you know.

According to Alter: “Major publishing houses are rushing out their own volumes” of resistance verse. And yet what is really needed is a drain-the-poesy-swamp movement, not more poesy-swamp- creature empowerment under the guise of resistance. Alter notes, for example, that Boston Review published “Poems for Political Disaster,” which has a foreword by academic poet laureate, Juan Felipe Herrera, and includes poems by academics Stephen Burt, Monica Youn and Jorie Graham. Alter, however, does not inform that they are indeed academics and, of course, is incapable of questioning and challenging the poesy establishment. Her job depends on that incapacity. All she can do is ahh and ooh before elitist establishment names and titles. Can she and those establishment poets possibly comprehend the words of Emerson, which inevitably damn them? “I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions. Every decent and well-spoken individual affects and sways me more than is right. I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways.”

Interestingly and again without any manifestation of capacity to question and challenge, Alter notes “But poets tend to be liberal,and the submissions skewed heavily to the left.” But if the poesy machine is liberal then clearly the poesy machine will be actively suppressing poets not deemed liberal (i.e., of the groupthink PC-mindset). In other words, in the darkness of suppression, how can one know just how many poets might not be of that liberal-ilk?

Amit Majmudar, editor of Resistance, Rebellion, Life, a book of 50 poems published by Knopf, argues regarding to his call for submissions: “I was equally open to an anti-globalization poem as I was to a Trumpocalypse Now poem.” Was he sincere or would sincerity have eliminated him from being chosen editor? Likely the latter! Alter, again mesmerized by “badges and names,” notes poems by former academic poet laureate Robert Pinsky, Eileen Myles, Kevin Young and Solmaz Sharif will be in that volume.

Finally, most poets shamefully hate and reject vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy. When criticized they will normally remain silent, especially if the critic is not of the known elite-poesy variety, or they will call the critic a “troll” or some other infantile ad hominem, or they will simply respond with vacuous politesse. Burt chose silence regarding my critical cartoon with his regard, “The Professors—Why Poetry Doesn’t Matter.” Myles called me a “troll,” regarding the critical cartoon with her regard, “The Poets—Identity Politics, But Still Bourgeois to the Core.” Majmudar chose the vacuous-politesse option regarding the critical cartoon on him and others, “Poetasters of the Resistance.” “Thanks for your creative engagement, George! Keep up the good work!” Oh, yeah. I’ll try to do that, Mr. Majmudar! And if he were not a flaming hypocrite, why did he reject my poem, “The Fall of Hillarius, the First,” but publish Frederick Seidel’s poem, “Now”? “Now a dictatorship of vicious spineless slimes/ We the people voted in has taken over.” […] Brilliant! Daring! Original! Now, if Alter possessed an iota of “fair and balanced” in her literary reportages, she would have included a counter sentence or even two in her extremely PC-biased article. Now, which establishment poesy magazine out there would be willing to publish this counter essay? Not one, of course! And that constitutes the core flaw embedded in the heart of the lit resistance…

Trigger Warning: This Blog May Contain Highly Offensive Content for Comfortably Entrenched Academics, Poets of the Status Quo, Politically-Correct Indoctrinees, and Gatekeepers of All Shades, Colors, Ages, and Sexual Orientations.

VERITAS NUMQUAM PERIT

Locate what you may believe to be errors in these blog entries, and I will rectify them, if in fact errors, and readily admit wrong for each and every one of them. To dismiss the writing and cartoon sketches, however, with ad hominem and quips simply serves to deflect attention from their truths. When you choose to dismiss someone as "angry" and "bitter," one must assume you are simply projecting your own anger and bitterness. Try instead logical point-by-point counter-argumentation.